Why Did Gosnell Sever the Babies' Spinal Cord If They Were Already Dead?

The Philadelphia judge overseeing the Kermit Gosnell murder trial threw out three of the seven first-degree murder charges Gosnell faced for allegedly killing babies born alive at his abortion clinic.

One of the most horrific underlying reasons for the dismaying dismissal is that Gosnell's support staff lacked the medical expertise to know whether a baby was actually dead when Gosnell cut the baby's neck and spinal cord. So Gosnell is actually reaping the benefit of having hired high schoolers and others with absolutely no medical background as his medical support staff. Think about this, the judge is actually doubting the word of people who made their living killing children as to whether a baby was alive or not.

One has to wonder of course why did Gosnell need to sever the baby's spines if they were already dead? Why would he have done that? Is it standard operating procedure to desecrate the corpses of babies post mortem?

It's worth noting that Gosnell is hardly in the clear. He's still facing four counts of murdering babies and one for murdering a mother. So this acquittal is not the end of the case. In fact, the defense is just beginning to present their defense. It's still not known as to whether Gosnell himself will take the stand.

But in general think about this. If Gosnell had killed the baby in the same way in the birth canal that would be perfectly fine to our current legal system but only because he's alleged to have delivered the babies before killing them, it might be illegal. This particular demarcation of humanity seems rather arbitrary, doesn't it? Is location really the arbiter of humanity? While legal eagles might argue that, only a moral idiot could agree.

@Shell: The child ought to have been given the “benefit of a doubt” in Roe v Wade.The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade gave custody of the newly begotten virgin to the woman who intended to kill him, gross negligence and indifference to human life, miscarriage of Justice.
The state cannot endow man with a human soul, virginity and a right to life. The concept of sovereignty dispels every notion of dependence upon anyone or thing except the Supreme Sovereign Being, “their Creator”

Posted by Kayla on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 9:48 PM (EST):

“But in general think about this. If Gosnell had killed the baby in the same way in the birth canal that would be perfectly fine to our current legal system but only because he’s alleged to have delivered the babies before killing them, it might be illegal. This particular demarcation of humanity seems rather arbitrary, doesn’t it? Is location really the arbiter of humanity? While legal eagles might argue that, only a moral idiot could agree.”
.
STRAW MAN PREMISE THAT IS NOT TRUE. GIVE AN EXAMPLE FROM REAL LIFE.

Posted by Rich on Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 7:59 PM (EST):

The state court may have dismissed the charges, but Gosnell still has to face the final judgement.

Posted by Mary De Voe on Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 11:27 AM (EST):

once he enters the world…correction

Posted by Mary De Voe on Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 11:25 AM (EST):

Intent to commit murder, to answer your question. Living or dead, the human being born becomes a citizen once it enters the world. The citizen assumes unalienable rights to life: “to ensure fetal demise” murders a citizen who has an unalienable right to life. No questions asked. The state acknowledges unalienable right to Life for an citizen born into the world. Because the child was forced into the world by medication makes it no less a citizen with constitutional rights as a sovereign person. “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” was denied to the murdered victim at the hands of Kermit Gosnell. These are constitutional laws Gosnell violated.

Posted by Adolfo on Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 8:10 AM (EST):

An excellent question. The more that comes out from this trial, the more difficult it is going to be for the pro choice crowd to say “safe, legal, and rare” with a straight face.

Posted by Shell on Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 2:43 AM (EST):

If the highschoolers were not medically qualified to decide a moving baby is alive, then they aren’t qualified to pronounce the child dead either. In that case the scissors should not have been used just in case. The fact that the judge has thrown these charges out on a very wobbly technic shows how low the culture has got.

Posted by Jane Jimenez on Tuesday, Apr 23, 2013 11:41 PM (EST):

Matt, your “problem” is that you lack the sophistication required to twist a definition (i.e. “baby” or “born”) to suit your needs. I attended another abortion doctor trial years ago, (AZ-Dr. Biskind) where the mother died of bleeding. It was truly amazing to hear the “baby/tissue/fetus/” language mutate throughout the trial depending on who was talking and on the point under discussion. In order to determine the age of the “tissue” for the abortion, testimony was taken about measurements of the “head” and “forehead” of the “tissue.” Testimony speculated that either a metal instrument or a hard bone from the “tissue?” could have torn the mother’s uterus. Sometimes tissue, sometimes baby…no wonder this is above the pay grade of President Obama. What a frightful situation to live in a culture that cannot defend the LIFE of a BABY!

Posted by Victoria on Tuesday, Apr 23, 2013 9:54 PM (EST):

Thank you!! I have been saying this very thing forever! Why is everybody so horrified? Should we be any less horrified if it happens in utero?

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.